FAIR USE NOTICE:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. The use of material on this site is an effort to advance understanding
of international relations and law.
NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, all translations to English are the work of this site's contributors.
Saturday, August 30, 2003 French "Journalism":
The Financial Times has an interview with Jean Plantureux, a political cartoonist for Le Monde. An interesting snippet:
"It is revealing that Plantu, now 53, had never visited the US until three months before the World Trade Centre attacks. He denies that anti-Americanism is rampant at the newspaper.
"I think Le Monde journalists are representative of French journalists in general, 80 per cent of whom are left-wing," he says. "The person at Le Monde most likely to be accused of being anti-American is unfortunately the cartoonist you have before you. Even though I am not. Not at all."
His work does in fact betray a dislike of US policies and attitudes - see, for example, the hostility in his caricatures of George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld - yet he is frustrated with the knee-jerk predictability of certain editorial choices.
There is much about the US to admire, he insists, and he asks which state I am from. He is disappointed to learn that I am not the all-American that my name had led him to expect. "I told my wife I was meeting someone called Jo Johnson, and she said, 'C'est pas vrai! C'est pas vrai! A real cowboy!'"
8/30/2003
Raffarin’s Charm is Wearing Off By Moïna Fauchier Delavigne in Courrier International A Translation
Raffarin’s government places France’s priorities before Europe’s. Certain members of the euro-zone that are more faithful to budgetary discipline are becoming irritated, and Paris risks being slapped with heavy fines.
“Flexibility was the key word at the meeting, Wednesday in Brussels, between the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, and the French Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin,” noted the Swedish daily, Le Temps. Prodi is demanding “flexibility” in the French economic policy, not in the Growth and Stability Pact. In fact, Prodi asked members of the EU to adapt themselves to the “common rules” and demanded their “full and complete” cooperation in matters of budgetary discipline. For his part, Raffarin called for flexibility in the interpretation of the Maastricht rules, knowing that the French state’s deficit will be closer to 4% of GDP in 2004 rather than the 3% that is allowed.
Consequently, the French Prime Minister asked the EU on August 26 to be more understanding, “all the while announcing that the objective of a budget deficit below 3% would be written in the 2006 Agenda,” stated the Corriere della Serra. El Pais remarked, “Raffarin does not want to commit himself to a date when France’s budget deficit will return below the level required by the Pact.” The Financial Times explained, “the French government finds itself caught between two contradictory objectives: on one hand, it must keep Jacques Chirac’s promise to lower taxes and give confidence back to consumers; on the other hand, in order to keep its promises to its European partners, France should respect the limits fixed by the Maastricht rules and bring its budget deficit below that fateful limit.”
Big Countries vs. Little Countries
Trapped between these two imperatives, Raffarin emphasized that his priority was to “do everything to revive growth and employment in 2004” in France. Certain of Raffarin’s “remarks, indicating that France did not rank as a top priority the reduction of its deficit, irritated some smaller European countries, in whose eyes the French government favors the lowering of taxes over fulfilling its European obligations,” noted the International Herald Tribune.
Furthermore, even if, according to the Financial Times, “Raffarin sought neither the Commission’s indulgence towards France nor modifications in the Pact,” Raffarin managed to irritate countries like Austria and the Netherlands, who “have fought to maintain a budgetary balance,” wrote The Guardian. However, according to the Financial Times, “politicians and European analysts are calling for the Commission to be firm. Along these lines, the Portuguese economist, Antonio Netoda Silva, estimated that ‘Europe will not be possible if we begin to have one set of
rules for large European countries and another set of rules for the smaller countries.’ ”
“Large budget deficits damage prosperity”
The French situation is not unique. For the past two years, Germany has not respected its deficit limits. And “if France and Germany continue on their paths—which seems likely—they may be faced with heavy fines next year,” notes The Guardian. In an editorial, the Financial Times estimated that “France and Germany have put some more nails in the Stability Pact’s coffin.” The newspaper emphasized, “They have done everything to avoid admitting that they have violated the limit of 3% for the third consecutive year.” “Italy and Portugal are no longer fulfilling their obligations and are, therefore, in favor of more flexible rules,” remarked the Spanish daily, El Pais.
However, Prodi has issued a warning, “The recourse to deficits and to public indebtedness has not helped any country escape from its difficulties during the past two years of economic slow-down.” The Financial Times insists, “It is clear, both theoretically and empirically, that outside of short periods of economic weakness, significant budgetary deficits are harmful to prosperity. Prodi’s concern is therefore legitimate like that of American Democrats.” The Spanish daily, La Vanguardia warns: “If the US does not take care of its mounting deficit, European economic orthodoxy may soon succumb to the temptation.”
France, like Germany, may face fines as high as 0.5% of GDP, or 7.6 billion euros. For El Pais, “it remains to be seen if the EU will be able to fine Germany, the strongest economic power in the Zone, which set the limit of 3% at Maastricht.” For its part, The Guardian warns that “it will be difficult to make any decision regarding sanctions just at the moment when the EU is getting ready to greet 10 new states, many of which have large deficits.” For the moment, adds the daily, “Prodi has held firm, emphasizing that repeated deficits will be sanctioned.”
Ian Buruma in The NY Times Magazine reminds us that France, not the United States, was primarily responsible for helping Israel to build its first nuclear bomb. The entire article which deals, in part, with how Europeans conflate US and Israel, is well worth a read.
8/29/2003
Sunday, August 24, 2003 Recently Discovered Blog:
"I consider myself neither left nor right but I am a moderate, resolutely opposed to all forms of political and religious extremism. It so happens that in this current dark age of France, this school of thought that at the time of the Enlightenment was understood by all, is now despised by all, reason for which most french libertarians, when they keep a political blog, have to use a pseudonym."
(1) Those countries such as Norway, Latvia and the Czech Republic which are specializing their military forces in particular fields such as mine-sweeping or biological arms detection. The military in these countries is placing more emphasis on complementing larger international forces on missions abroad than on protecting the national territory against the unlikely event of an invasion.
(2) "Free-riders," such as Germany and Belgium that are cutting defense-spending and not specializing their military forces.
(3) And then there are the French who "detest the notion of playing second fiddle to Washington, and they have adopted the opposite tack from the British. Though they also have maintained a strong military, Paris has built up both nuclear and rapid-reaction forces as a means of independence from the U.S. security umbrella."
8/24/2003
Saturday, August 23, 2003 France Supports Tests on Animals in the Cosmetics Industry August 23, 2003
By Florence Amalou from Le Monde Translated Excerpts
Animal rights advocates suspect the French government of being at the beck and call of the French cosmetics industry and, notably, of L’Oréal and LVMH. Nicole Fontaine, the French labor minister, is responsible for an appeal placed on June 10 that seeks to repeal the ban on selling cosmetics (creams, make-up, etc.) in Europe whose ingredients have been tested on animals. This ban, which will affect the majority of new cosmetics with chemical ingredients, will take effect after March 2009….
France is the only country to have found “important legal ambiguities” in the European law, note animal rights advocates, and France voted against the law when it was adopted in January of 2003. (reported in Le Monde, January 18)
“It’s well known that the cosmetics lobby is particularly strong in France,” says Muriel Arnal of the French branch of One Voice (which has 20,000 members). “The cosmetics industry has won the support of the French government.” France already dragged its heels before signing, in 2000, the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals, even though this convention had already been established 14 years earlier in the Council of Europe.
The French legal maneuvering, revealed by the British daily The Guardian on August 19, has unleashed a storm of protests from animal rights advocates. “Claiming that the Convention is difficult to interpret is a smoke screen,” fumes Wendy Higgins of the British organization BUAV. “The wording is sufficiently clear. The ban will not prevent businesses from putting on the market or finalizing new products. It just limits the ways in which the businesses can go about doing these things,” she explains.
A Two-Sided Discourse
The European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE) which includes several national, animal-defense associations, has accused the Raffarin government—which has “of course spoken with those in the industry,” admits someone associated with Ms. Fontaine (a French labor minister)— of supporting the arguments of its national champions
In response to these criticisms, Paris is adamantly defending its position and argues that the European Directive 2003/15/CE will stop cosmetic innovation, create market distortions with “inevitable repercussions in terms of investments as well as losses of competitiveness and jobs."
A dispute lies ahead built on a double-sided commercial discourse. Cosmetics manufacturers refuse to reveal that the active molecules in their products were tested on animals. The chemical industry to which the work is contracted out does not currently possess the technical means to perform tests other than on animals. However, for the past 10 years, most manufacturers such as Clarins, L’Oréal and Lancaster for example, have indicated on their labels that they have stopped testing on animals that was used to determine whether their “finished products” were toxic or irritating. Instead, they use skin or ocular cells from skin constructed from artificial tissue (developed by researchers at L’Oréal) and corneas created from human cultures.
But for the ingredients used in the production of the finished product, tests on animals continue. For the sake of cosmetic tests, France “alone sacrifices more animals than the 14 other EU countries combined,” concludes Ms. Arnal. This amounts to about 38,000 rabbits, guinea-pigs and mice. However this is relatively little compared to the number of animals used by the pharmaceutical and cleaning industries...
Sunday, August 17, 2003 From Charles de Gaulle to Jacques Chirac An editorial by Jean-Claude Casanova from Le Monde (July 24, 2003)
A Translation (First posted on Europundits)
In looking back upon the America-French crisis from the 1960’s when a general was governing France and in comparing this time period to the near-rupture that took place surrounding the war in Iraq, one is tempted to speak of a constant anti-Americanism in French politics. After all, Jacques Chirac comes from De Gaulle’s party, and he has always laid claim to the General’s ideology. He has the same powers as De Gaulle, and Chirac is the same age as de Gaulle was at the beginning of the 1960’s. That is enough for some in Washington and Paris to believe that Franco-American antagonism is constant.
A bit of perspective enables us to simplify the bones of contention in the 1960’s. At issue were nuclear weapons, NATO and Europe. General de Gaulle, pursuing the work of the Fourth Republic, gave France a modern nuclear arsenal. Like his predecessors, de Gaulle did not want to deprive our country of technologically advanced weaponry. He wanted to give France some insurance against the unforeseen, to increase her influence in the allied camp, to increase her prestige, to boost her growth and to reinforce a European defense.
Even if one had serious doubts with respect to the idea of a total independence that was guaranteed by strength dissuading the weak or by the policy of sanctuarization, “the program,” as Raymond Aron said at that time, “was at least worth more than its lawyers.” Yes, this strategy first displeased the United States; but this misunderstanding gradually disappeared. De Gaulle, himself, argued with those who claimed that France’s nuclear capacity was a means of opposing the United States. He said, “Naturally, American nuclear arms remain the guarantee of world peace. Of course, France is not at all opposed to the idea that this capacity be combined with an analogous one or with a capacity comparable to that of its allies.” For this reason, de Gaulle’s successors integrated the French nuclear force into that of the Atlantic alliance. Ideological quarrels were avoided, and Georges Pompidou stated that France and the UK’s nuclear weapons “contributed to the Atlantic alliance’s global strategy of determent.” Later, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and François Mitterand supported the installation of American missiles in Germany.
Double Hegemony
In fact, General de Gaulle, in spite of his problems with NATO, did not break with the Atlantic alliance. He shook it up. Why? Basically because he reasoned as Bainville would have. He had hoped to share Germany; however this hoped had failed in 1945. Neither the Russians nor the Americans nor the English nor the Germans accepted this idea. Since the idea of a Franco-Russian alliance to divide and weaken Germany did not work, the goal in the 1960’s became to settle the “German question” among Europeans and without American intervention. Thus was born the idea of “removing the German problem from the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States and turning it into what it rightfully was—a problem between Europeans.” So said de Gaulle to Brejnev in June 1966, and he added, “If you want security, it is necessary to keep the German question inside of Europe.” Thus de Gaulle had rejected the Atlantic strategy of incorporating Germany into the West in order to stand up to the USSR.
In fact, de Gaulle could not stand what he called the submission of Germany to the United States. He wanted an “independent European politics,” and, in order to reach his goals, he played the USSR and US off of one another. He used one side to protect him from the other, all the while hoping that European independence would be born from an American withdrawal and from a Russian agreement on Germany in exchange for this withdrawal.
Yet this second strategy was to be no more successful than the first. The Germans were aware of the dangers, and other Europeans were worried. The Russians kept what they had because they were communists, and the Russians used the French strategy against Germany and the United States. This explains the French communists’ constant support for de Gaulle’s politics—the failure of which became evident in 1968 when the Soviets cracked down on the Czech protests.
It is said that in 1958 de Gaulle asked his French foreign affairs ministers: “What is left of my 1944 Germany strategy?” “Nothing, my General,” they are said to have responded. If Jacques Chirac had one day asked Hubert Védrine or Dominique de Villepin—his two foreign affairs ministers—what remained of the de Gaulle’s final strategy, they would have given the same response.
History intervened. Germany was reunited and eastern Europe liberated. De Gaulle had hoped for this result. However, it was obtained by a strategy—the maintaining and strengthening of the American presence in Europe that led to the fall of the USSR—that was the reverse of that which he had advocated. At issue was not the division of Europe into traditional nations but, instead, totalitarianism vs. democracies that were reinforced and preserved by American power.
When the French government praises the politics of 1947 (the creation of NATO, the Marshall plan, the development of international organizations) in order to oppose Washington’s current politics, she would do well to remember that it was American power and its presence in Europe that was responsible for the end of the Cold War—not a neutrality or the finding of a middle road between two superpowers.
The Only World Power
One might both rejoice over and regret General de Gaulle’s politics with respect to the United States. “Rejoice” because de Gaulle raised up a France suffering from the defeat of 1940 and from the colonial wars. “Regret” because he abused the term “Atlantic.” While France was saved three times—in 1917, in 1944 and during the Cold War—by America, the word “Atlantic” has become an insult in French political vocabulary. One might also recall the troubles with NATO. France continues to belong to it, all the while acting according to its own fashion. One day we demand the military command in the Mediterranean. The next day, we make war in ex-Yugoslavia under the NATO banner. However France consistently refuses to join the organization’s planning committee.
The great paradox is that France now complains about the United States’ current Atlantic policy: we bemoan the fact that Washington has become more indifferent to NATO. Perhaps we would be in a better position to complain and to demand a more stable Atlantic relationship if we had been less zealous to undermine that relationship.
American has become the only global power. We can no longer play the United States off of the other great power in order to enlarge France’s role. We have to accept a reunified Germany as she is. Our nuclear program has lost its importance given the way things are and given the interruption that we made in our nuclear testing. For more than 10 years, the power of the United States has grown in relation to the powers of France and of Europe. From this perspective, the tensions between the US and us risk becoming tainted by resentment on our side and by arrogance on theirs. This will be all the more true when Washington gives us other legitimate causes to be concerned.
The war in Iraq opened a chasm. Of course, the new American strategy arises from 9/11, from the United State’s overwhelming military power and from the situation in the Middle East. Americans believe that they are directly threatened. They have remodeled their old strategy and are indifferent to the Atlantic alliance. They prefer, if they believe it to be necessary, to construct ad hoc coalitions. Above all, they will not hesitate to make preventive wars and to bypass, if necessary, the Security Council.
Indications of this strategy were evident well before 9/11. From the moment that the Soviet Union crumbled and when, as a result of this event and of its military arms, the United States assumed a more significant global role, American power and will grew. After 9/11, a new strategy was born whose focus is the Middle East. But, in this part of the world, France, since de Gaulle, believes that she has a particular role to play.
Let’s not go on and on about the war in Iraq. Since the Suez disaster, the UK sticks to the US in order to influence the latter. Jean Monnet recommended the same policy to France; however de Gaulle preferred to increase France’s power through an opposition to the United States. What remains of de Gaullism and of the Arab strategy together with the United States’ intervention without the UN and its penchant for unilateralism—all of these factors prevent France from standing, like the UK, next to the US. Diplomatic and rhetorical one-upping pushed France well beyond such a position. France increased the political cost of the invasion for the United States, and this explains the strong reactions on both sides and justifies the consideration of this event as a true crisis—the most serious one since the 1960’s.
Paradoxically, the policy positions have now been reversed. De Gaulle affirmed the sovereignty of nations against all forms of Atlantic or European integration. With respect to those who dreamed of cooperation, de Gaulle said, “I know that some poor fellows claim to have replaced force with politics. However, no policy will ever succeed if we renounce our strength.” He was not any kinder to the UN: “We will not grant her any right of arbitration or recognize her jurisdiction…or any ability to declare or to make law.” Today, it’s the reverse. Jacque Chirac is speaking like President Wilson, and George W. Bush like General de Gaulle.
The French always invent a new doctrine when things change. And that doctrine is symmetric and opposite to that being put forth by Washington. France now claims that: (1) only respect for the rule of law gives any legitimacy to force; (2) the UN Security Council has a monopoly on force and law; and (3) the only justified war is that which is supported by the Security Council. This new doctrine has both its advantages as well as its drawbacks. The advantage is that, by reason of her permanent seat on the Security Council and her veto, France can participate in controlling the use of force throughout the world. France believed that the atom bomb would make us the equal of the superpowers. Now we believe that the Security Council will place France on par with China and the United States.
Yet the disadvantage is that this doctrine is a lie—both in reality and in theory. In reality, because NATO (including France) has already militarily intervened in Serbia without the blessing of the Security Council in order to avoid the Russian veto. If China decides tomorrow to threaten Taiwan, it is American power that can protect the island and its democratic government and not the Security Council (thanks to the Chinese veto). If the Security Council cannot guarantee the rule of law everywhere and at all times, this is because of its structure and functions. The fact that a couple of powers—some of which are not democracies—have a veto over the use of force creates the possibility of political arbitrariness that is the opposite of the rule of law.
Sound and Fury and Hypocrisy
If France truly seeks to embrace the UN’s supremacy and to entrust the exclusive use of force to this organization, then the UN must undergo reform. The number of permanent members of the Security Council must be increased, the veto should be eliminated and replaced by a qualified majority vote, and non-democratic regimes must be excluded. Since such reforms are unlikely to succeed, we should call a spade a spade. We glorify the Security Council for boosting our international position with respect to the United States and for giving us more of a say in the world. Realism justifies this strategy. Yet the invocation of other, more heavenly rationales is only so much sound and fury and hypocrisy.
If we leave the realm of hypotheticals and reenter reality, we might inquire as to the reasons for the current American interventions abroad. Americans worry about three dangers: terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and tyrannical regimes. Europeans also share these concerns. If these dangers are real, how they can be prevented? The United States’ military capacities are unparalleled, and Europe can deny neither the legitimacy of America’s objectives nor her capacity to attain them. However Europe can question the way in which the United States acts because it recognizes that one can be powerful but nonetheless cause damage that is worse than that which one sought to avoid.
This main reproach that one can level today at the United States no longer pertains to the war in Iraq. This war will be judged by its consequences. If there is peace between Palestinians and Israelis because of the United States, if Americans can create a moderate regime in Baghdad, if Iran limits its weapons strategy, if Syria no longer subsidizes terrorism abroad and if she respect Lebanon’s independence, if the oil in the region contributes more to that area’s economic development than in the past, then it is hard to imagine why Europe would not congratulate and help America.
If France’s only strategy is to offer soothing speeches on the Middle East while secretly wishing for the United States’ failure with the hope of thereby justifying her position with respect to the UN, then France will only cause greater damage to her relations with the United States and she will divide Europe.
No, Americans will not be able to rapidly install a democracy in the region. But their intentions are, nonetheless, legitimate. When Jacques Chirac says, “Our loyalty to human rights, to the universal values of justice, tolerance and liberty must not blind us to the fact that these values may express themselves under different names throughout our respective cultures and traditions,” the second part of the statement introduces a reservation that weakens the first part of the statement. Democratic values only exist if there are certain, basic political structures: respect for human rights and for the free expression of opinions and votes. When we tell the Serbs that they did not respect these values and these rights in Kosovo or Bosnia, we must have the courage to do this elsewhere as well. This does not mean that we must declare war on all non-democratic regimes. Nor must all the organizations on the earth resemble our own. This simply means that our principals forbid us from taking part in the lies of tyrannical regimes.
An Artificial Equilibrium
With respect to the ridiculous idea that France should adhere to the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis (in contrast to the Washington-London-Madrid-Rome-Warsaw axis), this is an unrealistic and immoral illusion. Unrealistic because such an axis is neither coherent nor powerful, and it would only offer an artificial counterweight to American unilateralism. Immoral because this axis places two democratic governments—France and Germany—on the same level with Russia, whose actions in Chechnya violate human rights and national principals and whose policy with respect to freedom of speech has an authoritarian bent. The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis is an illusion because the German Christian-Democrats, if they return to power, will put aside Berlin’s opposition to Washington. Russia, in turn, is using France in order to better position herself in her dialogue with the United States. Furthermore, a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis would be disastrous for the construction of a European identity because it would amplify the divisions in the heart of Europe.
Those aspects of the American foreign policy that bother us—an indifference towards her allies, rash decision-making and a tendency to over-react—will not last forever. The United States has an unrivalled military power, but its credibility abroad has been weakened and it does not have boundless economic resources.
Domestic politics, the budget and elections will also have an effect. If terrorism continues in Iraq and in the Middle East, then Americans will quickly realize the value of European friends. In order to encourage this movement, it is not enough for Europe to impatiently hope or to seek opportunistic positions. We must recognize that which is legitimate in the American policy and show, by greater European unity and by a recasting of the Atlantic alliance, that Europe can be a loyal and pragmatic partner of the United States.
In order to turn this strategy of détente into a reality, no European country can demand a privileged position. France should adopt the strategy towards the United States that the latter once adopted with respect to General de Gaulle. Henry Kissinger summarized it in the following words, “The interests of democracies are, by their nature, in harmony. The point of allies is to share the burden.” The point of Europe is not to reduce the influence of the United States. Europe’s autonomy does not require a confrontation with America. Kissinger always said that one must avoid “a professorial, arrogant, domineering attitude.” He was talking about de Gaulle. But these words may just as well apply to President Bush. Kissinger added that, with respect to France, one must avoid “over-reacting in response to her condescending attitude and not taking into account her basic needs.” We must follow this advice now with respect to the United States. America will get over its feverish behavior. Other there, as well, pragmatism will prevail.
(Note that the Kissinger quotations are my translations of the French translations. In other words, they are not the direct English quotes).
While the French government is ever eager to express its commitment to the European Union, it has difficulty putting its money where its mouth is. Case in point: governmental subsidies to French companies (viz. France Telecom, Electricite de France, Bull and Alstom) that are rubbing Brussels and EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti the wrong way.
With respect to the 7 billion euros that the French government made available to the engineering company Alstom, the French government should (according to EU regulations) have requested EU approval before providing the money. Although reminded of this requirement by the European Competition Commission, France simply ignored it. An EU investigation has been opened.
But of course the French have their two cents worth regarding the NYC blackout. For Le Monde, the cause was...capitalism:
"The blackout was proof of the waste produced by a botched privatization and based on the quest for short-term profits of the private sector...We [the French] are not immune from such widespread blackouts, particularly if the electricity industry becomes a totally deregulated market and loses its sense of public service."
Someone should tell Bloomberg. There is no need for any investigation. Just eliminate any remnants of privatization in the electricity industry and the problem will be solved.
8/16/2003
Friday, August 15, 2003 Libya:
"France is using pressure and blackmail and we do not accept this."
In a questionable use of its Security Council veto power, the French government has threatened to undermine the effort to lift UN sanctions on Libya unless the latter pays French citizens more money. In particular, the French government is upset that Libya paid only between $3,000-30,000 to French families of victims who died in a Libyan-sponsored terrorist attack on a French airplane over Nigeria in 1989. In contrast, the families of victims (who incidentally come from 21 different nations) of the Lockerbie disaster are receiving over $2 million in compensation each. France is using its Security Council position to blackmail Libya to increase payments to French families.
France risks provoking the anger not only of Libya but also of other countries such as Algeria, Egypt and Morocco that have long opposed the sanctions.
8/15/2003
"With Germany, Italy and the Netherlands now in recession and slim prospects for an economic recovery by the end of 2003, the economy of the eurozone
is dismal. On Thursday, August 14, the European Commission added to the pessimism by forecasting a growth of 0.4% at best for the third trimester of 2003. The European executive even considers possible an economic stagnation and, for the final three months of the year, only sees minimal improvement between 0.2-0.6%."
"The Bush administration has been reluctant to give the United Nations more than minimal authority in the reconstruction of Iraq. Many administration members say that France, Germany, Russia and other countries demanding such a role are actually doing so to try to get more contracts and economic benefits for themselves."
Wednesday, August 13, 2003 Agricultural Figures from the US State Department:
"-- The allowed ceiling for European Union agricultural subsidies [under WTO regulations] is $62,000 million, more than three times that of the United States. The Japanese ceiling is $31,000 million, or 50 percent higher than the U.S. ceiling.
-- U.S. agricultural tariffs...currently average 12 percent...In contrast, average agricultural tariffs in the European Union are over 30 percent and in Japan are over 50 percent."
8/13/2003
Update on the Occupied Territories:
(for more info. on the Western Saharan situation, see archived posting from July 25. Also this site is informative.)
The Security Council adopted Resolution 1495 on July 31, extending the UN presence (named MINURSO), led by James Baker, until the end of October. The resolution also endorses Baker's peace plan. With respect to the resolution, Dar Al Hayat reported: "The latest resolution plan for the Western Sahara conflict...came to indicate that the conflict has reached its final stage - generally the most critical and complicated one. France, which is known for its support to Morocco, objected to the U.S.-drafted plan, and obtained almost everything it wanted, after a number of amendments were introduced to satisfy Paris, and consequently Rabat."
Al Jazeerah, in a rare piece of almost-competent journalism, wrote with respect to the Western Sahara UN resolution: "In an uncomfortable reminder of the line-up over the invasion of Iraq, Paris with the acquiescence of Moscow and Beijing opposed Washington, London and Madrid."
Both articles highlight the tug-of-war taking place between the US and France in Northern Africa.
8/13/2003
Tuesday, August 12, 2003 Liberia:
Although there was much domestic and international pressure on the American government to send a large military force into Liberia, the emphasis upon using African (in particular Nigerian) troops in Liberia is now being haled (go here for the US and here for the UK) as a sign of new and improved African problem-solving abilities. Nonetheless, Moeletsi Mbeki of the South Africa Institute for International Affairs offers a useful reminder: "African governments were not the ones demanding that Taylor step down. It was George Bush demanding that he step down." One might expand upon Mbeki's comments by noting that the French government was not calling for Taylor to step down either--in fact, France was opposed to making Taylor's resignation a bargaining chip for UN intervention in Liberia. Had France's advice been followed, American instead of African troops would be occupying Liberia and Taylor would still hold power.
8/12/2003
Eastern Europe and the Euro-American Conflict By Mirel Bran
Published in Le Monde (August 11, 2003)
A Translation
The disputes between Europeans and Americans have opened a new front in Eastern Europe. Romania and Bulgaria, which are both causing problems for the European Union’s expansion, have been sometimes flattered and sometimes ordered to choose sides.
At first, the United States seemed to have won the sympathy of the two countries’ governments, both frustrated because the EU has pushed off their countries’ integration to 2007. Last year, Romania became the first European country to sign an accord with the US that exempted American citizens from being called before the International Criminal Court. The leaders of the EU considered this to be a traitorous act. It angered the Commission and irritated Jacques Chirac to the point where he called Romanians “poorly brought up.”
Then Romania and Bulgaria rethought their diplomacy and made an about-face in order to re-win Europe’s sympathy. During the last European Council on June 20th at Porto Carras near Thessalonica, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria promised, alongside ten other future members of the European Union, to respect the common position adopted by Europe with respect to the International Criminal Court.
Reaffirming their Adhesion to the EU
After a marriage of convenience with the Americans, the late-comers to the EU’s expansion seem ready to break their ties with the US and to join “old Europe.” Romanian diplomats have begun a series of sophisticated polemics in order to the save the face of their government. According to the Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs, there is “absolutely no contradiction” between Romania’s acceptance of the EU position with respect to the International Criminal Court and Romania’s accord with Washington. In short, if the Romanian powers-that-be signed this embarrassing accord, the Romanian Parliament has not yet ratified it—and it will never be ratified according to the highest authorities in Bucharest.
In order to win the favors of the French, Romania has declared that it will purchase 4 Airbuses, even though preliminary agreements have already been made to purchase American Boeings. Bucharest will be ready to risk everything in order to ensure their adhesion to the EU in 2007. The Romanian government should complete its negotiations regarding integration at the end of 2004, before the end of the current Commission’s term. “It is important to finalize the negotiations with this Commission,” declared President Ion Iliescu.
Neighboring Bulgaria has the same goal and for the same reasons. “With a new team in Brussels, it will take four to six months to pick up where we left off with the old team,” stated Solomon Passy, Bulgaria’s chief diplomat. Sofia has already completed discussions on 24 of the 31 chapters that each candidate country must conclude. Romania has only completed 19.
In spite of all this, the two countries continue to be the object of American cupidity. The American administration’s sudden interest in these two nations (in Washington, the Americans sometimes cannot even find these two countries on a map) is explained by political and economic reasons. Since the war in Iraq and the French-German opposition, the US wants to establish close ties with former Communist bloc countries. In this new context, Romania and Bulgaria have been called upon to play a special role particularly because the White House wants to install military bases in these two countries.
From February to June of 2003, six thousand American soldiers camped out in the Romanian port of Constantza, and several others were situated in the Bulgarian port of Sarofovo. General Richard Myers, who is the head of the American army, made a discreet visit on June 16 to Bucharest in order to finalize the future deployment of American soldiers in the region. Since they both border the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria would enable the American army to have permanent bases near the Middle East. Thousands of American soldiers will abandon their encampments in Germany that were established during the Cold War in order to permanently establish themselves in “New Europe,” a cherished expression of American Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
However beyond these political strategies, another battle is taking shape—this time on the economic level. At the end of June, representatives of American and British companies—Lochkeed Martin, General Dynamics, Harris and British Aerospace (BAE)—traveled to Sofia in order to express their interest in the Bulgarian military industry. According to the Bulgarian Minister of the Economy, military exports went from US $800 million before the fall of communism in 1989 to $40 million in 2000 before rising to $400 million in 2002. The military sector used to employ 115,000 people; only 25,000 of those still have jobs in that sector.
The United States Offers $$$
“We have not just come to Bulgaria to sell equipment—we’ve come to develop a long-term partnership,” declared David Potts, the international director of Lockheed Martin during his recent visit. As proof, the United States has promised Sofia $130 million as compensation for losses suffered during the war in Iraq. As for Romania, the placement of American soldiers in Constantza has already brought that country $20 million. Washington has also promised to give an addition $15 million for the modernization of the Romanian army. Another $16 million has been offered to Romanian businesses in the form of loans.
Nonetheless, European integration seems, for the moment, to be more appealing to Romanian and Bulgaria. The numbers speak for themselves. For the past three years, the European Commission gave 650 million euros in annual, non-reimbursable credit to Romania. After 2004, the European manna will be increased to attain, in 2006, an annual sum of 1 billion euros for Romania and 430 million euros for Bulgaria. For a Bulgarian who has spent his life driving tanks and who now finds himself unemployed because of military reforms, Europe presents more advantages than the United States. The United States is far away and to get there, the Bulgaria needs a visa. In contrast, the Schengen area has already been open for two years.
-----------------------------------------------
Comment: Bran makes no mention of the fact that Eastern Europeans may feel ties to the US as a result of the actions taken by the latter during the Cold War. It was not, after all, the French left that deplored the Soviets' atrocities in Eastern Europe. Bran is caught in the French "multipolar" framework, according to which former Soviet bloc countries must now choose either the Paris-Berlin axis or Washington. There can be no compromise. Let's just hope that Eastern Europeans reject Bran's hostility towards the US (perhaps most evident in the comment that Americans in D.C. cannot find Bulgaria or Romania on the map) and have a less antagonistic vision of trans-Atlantic relations.
8/12/2003
Monday, August 11, 2003 José Bové
José Bové held a pow-wow of 200-300,000 like-minded anti-globalization (or, as they now prefer to be called, “alter-globalization”) protestors in Averyon, France over the weekend. Bové called for the disruption of the WTO summit in Cancun in mid-September (Bové hopes for a “September that is not just hot, but one that burns”) as well as for the destruction of factories that produce GM crops. Bové has never been one to embrace non-violent protest, and some compare Bové’s efforts to scapegoat the world’s ills on a few easy targets to Le Pen’s tactics in the last presidential election (although Bové prefers multinational companies, whereas Le Pen opted for immigrants).
Taking a closer look at Bové’s politics reveals that the French far left’s hero stands for a very particular form of alternative globalization. As this interview from New Left Review indicates, Bové--while arguing against export aids (viz. dumping)—is a strong advocate of tariffs and other protectionist agricultural policies. The party for which Bové speaks-- Confédération Paysanne (Farmers’ Confederation)—advocates agricultural exchanges of cereals, meat and most dairy products only between “countries at comparable developmental stages.”
Bové therefore has no problem with, for example, the European Union’s elaborate and costly efforts to protect its beet sugar crops. The NY Times noted in a recent editorial that, “In a fully liberalized global marketplace…Europe would produce no sugar whatsoever. It would be far cheaper to import the sweetener from tropical climates that Europeans once colonized precisely because they were rich in things like sugar cane. Poor countries where sugar is one of the few crops capable of bringing in money on the international market would be deliriously happy if that occurred.” However Bové would not be. He would have the “poor countries” sell their sugar within their own borders or among other poor countries, leaving Europeans to sweeten their teeth on the products of European farms. For Bové, the problem is not that Europeans are not buying enough agricultural products from Africa. Instead, the problem is that the trade walls between Africa and Europe are not high enough. Whether African farmers can produce sugar more cheaply than European farmers is not relevant. The goal is not greater agricultural interdependency.
René Riesel, a former ally of Bové from the Confédération Paysanne and an opponent of the industrialization of agriculture, has offered the following critique of Bové’s followers: “ATTAC and the citizenists are neo-Statists who want nothing more than the return of the Welfare State; they want to regulate the system, not to challenge it in any real sense. They have nothing to say about alienation because it doesn't interest them: they are nothing but old leftists, old Stalinists who have updated their theses ever so slightly.”
8/11/2003
Sunday, August 10, 2003
"Americans are holding an ongoing plebiscite on the question of French friendship, and they are voting with dollars. Individual Americans are deciding for themselves who they'll give their money to, and France is no longer a favored choice."
According to a government study of approximately 7000 French women between the ages of 20 and 59, 1 in 10 French women--ranging all social and economic classes--suffer from domestic violence. 17% of those surveyed had suffered physical abuse, and around 5% of those surveyed had survived an attempt on their lives.
8/08/2003
Tourism:
"The disappearance of the big-spending American tourist on the Champs Elysées - predicted since the diplomatic fracas over Iraq - is now a statistical reality.
Overnight stays by American tourists declined nearly 40 per cent in May compared with last year. Upmarket hotels saw their business with foreign customers tumble 15 per cent year-on-year at the start of the summer, while occupancy rates for the greater Paris region have fallen a full six points to an unhealthy low of 67.4 per cent."
More generally, ABC reports that "From luxury hotels on the French Riviera to Viennese cafes and the double-decker buses of London, American tourists have deserted Europe en masse."
8/08/2003
Iraq:
In reporting on the car bombing outside of the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad, Le Monde writes that it "indicates, more so than all other violent acts of the past few weeks, the error of judgment made by Washington in Iraq."
Meanwhile, Kenneth Cain, a former UN human rights officer, provides a glimpse in The NY Times of a UN military operation that went awry: the UN force (called Ecomog) in Liberia in the mid-1990's. Cain details the rape and mutilation of children, trafficking of drugs and other atrocities committed by UN peacekeeping troops. Cain calls for greater transparency on the part of the UN regarding the misconduct of its soldiers.
It seems that going through the UN would not necessarily have made the rebuilding in Iraq (assuming that there would have been any rebuilding if the UN had been involved) any easier or more effective--it would simply have blunted media scrutiny. There is no indication that the Coalition operation is any less effective than the majority of UN operations (whether in Rwanda, Serbia, Liberia or elsewhere). What is different is the spotlight turned on the operations--there is a willingness to tolerate violence and even abominations provided that they are under the aegis of the UN; whereas the least act of violence in Iraq is taken as proof of a quagmire-like Vietnam situation.
Madagascar's courts have sentenced in abstentia the country's former President, Didier Ratsiraka, to 10 years of hard labor for corruption during Ratsiraka's 23-year rule. Ratsiraka stood accused of stealing $8 million before his political career came to a contentious end (with Ratsiraka refusing to accept his loss in elections).
Ratsiraka, an admiral, once trained at the French naval academy in Brest (in western France), and it is perhaps not surprising that the convicted criminal has been living comfortably in France since July of 2002 (along with Madagascar's former minister of finance and the former head of the central bank).
8/07/2003
Wednesday, August 06, 2003 Multilateral, not Multipolar! By Clyde Prestowitz and Franck Journoud
From Le Figaro, August 5, 2003
A Translation
Advocating a multipolar word is a worthless and unfortunate French undertaking. France should renounce it in favor of multilateralism, which is the only strategy that will lead to a balanced international system where Europe will be able to speak on equal terms with the United States.
This multipolar world is an unattainable goal in international relations. Since the end of the Cold War, France together with Russia, China and Brazil (among others), has regularly called for a realignment of global relations.
This advocacy of multipolarity is a sterile undertaking for France because a number of France’s European partners have no desire, in the foreseeable future, to arm-wrestle with the United States. If called upon to choose between Brussels (or, in reality, Paris-Berlin) and Washington, France’s European partners would choose Washington. The recent Iraqi crisis clearly demonstrated this. Openly imagining strategic disagreements between the two sides of the Atlantic is a congenital defect of the French political discourse, and the multipolar system that is supposed to somehow manage these disagreements has been rejected by a number of European countries and leaders. They do not view disagreements with the US as the raison d'être of a multipolar system. Instead, they view such disagreements as rare accidents.
However France’s promotion of this multipolar system is not only futile, it is also untimely. The challenges facing the world are too significant for the international system to fragment. The West, in particular, which has been the world’s economic and political epicenter since 1945, will only see her responsibilities increase in the coming decades.
If France should not openly rebel, must she submit to the American Empire? Not at all. She should recognize the primacy not of the United States but of the tie binding Europe and the United States. France must therefore abandon her multipolar ways in favor of a multilateral approach. In a return to the sources of international order that were born in 1945, the multilateralism of the 21st century will take into account European power and potential. In return, this new multilateralism will require a real and binding reaffirmation on the part of the United States concerning its commitment to international institutions and its refutation of imperial ambitions.
This multilateral choice does not amount to capitulation. It is the rational choice. The international opportunities that it will open to Europe are not any less ambitious, only less antagonistic. In order to prevent Europe from becoming a mere appendage of the American Empire and in order to make the trans-Atlantic relationship a partnership of equals, France must make a demonstration of good faith not only to the United States but to her European neighbors as well.
The French newspaper, Libération, accuses a French agency--Mission de l'adoption internationale (MAI)--that is affiliated with the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs of turning a blind eye to the trafficking of African children to adopting parents in France. Although France has signed the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption which requires that "the persons, institutions and authorities whose consent is necessary for adoption...have not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind," Libération uncovered several instances of young African children who had been adopted by French parents and who had been incorrectly passed off as orphans with falsified identification papers. The French government denies any wrong-doing.
8/06/2003
The French government continues its subsidies to failing businesses in possible defiance of European Union competition rules.
8/06/2003
Canterbury's Moral Beacon:
The Archbishop of Canterbury who invoked "Christian moral teaching" to condemn the "illegal" and "immoral" invasion of Iraq and to denounce the military operations in Afghanistan as "morally tainted" and "embarrassing" seems to be less willing to moralize when it comes to his Church's history of intolerance. In response to the confirmation by US Episcopal leaders of an openly gay bishop, the Archbishop of Canterbury gloomily predicted "difficult days ahead" and encouraged followers to listen to and take into account the words of those "who are gravely concerned at this development."
8/06/2003
Monday, August 04, 2003 UN & Liberia:
Mexico, France and Germany abstained from UN Security Council Resolution 1497 which authorizes a multinational force in Liberia. The resolution presented a watered-down version of that which was originally presented by the United States. The US draft had called for the "immediate departure" of Charles Taylor, while the resolution merely refers to a "commitment to depart from Liberia made by President Charles Taylor."
The countries that abstained from the resolution objected to the following paragraph:
"...current or former officials or personnel from a contributing State, which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that contributing State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to the Multinational Force or United Nations stabilization force in Liberia, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by that contributing State..."
Considering that Nigeria and other ECOWAS members who will participate in the UN operation have signed the Rome Statute, this clause is clearly designed to protect the US (which, technically, also signed the Rome Statute as well but, in contrast to the ECOWAS countries, later renounced this act). In response to the argument that Resolution 1497's exception undermines the International Criminal Court (ICC), a US State Department spokesman has stated in a press conference that the exception only applies to those countries that are not parties to the ICC, thereby respecting the ICC's jurisdiction as well as the US's own interests in remaining outside of the ICC (incidentally, the same press conference revealed that the US is planning to turn over Iraqis accused of war crimes to an "Iraqi-led tribunal," suggesting that the US is currently moving further and further away from the idea of international tribunals).
However, the US argument doesn't work. The Rome Statute (Article 12(2)) grants the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of signatory states (which includes Liberia). In other words, the ICC was designed to be able to assert jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the Rome Statute. The exception in Security Council Resolution 1497 flies in the face of this type of territorial jurisdiction. The US position with respect to the ICC is becoming untenable--these kinds of exemptions simply cannot be negotiated in every single UN resolution which might require the commitment of US troops. Either the US must pull out of UN military operations in countries where the US has not negotiated a bilateral accord (which would give the US government the option of extraditing accused American war criminals) or the US must accept the ICC's jurisdiction.
That said, France is ill-suited to complain about exceptions to ICC jurisdiction. France was primarily responsible for Article 124 of the Rome Statute, which allows parties to the Rome Statute to invoke an exemption from war crime prosecutions for 7 years.
8/04/2003
Sunday, August 03, 2003 Democratic Republic of the Congo:
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has offered a damning critique of the French-led UN force in the DRC, warning that it may be creating the "dangerous illusion of protection to the civilian population." The report notes:
--"Despite the deployment of MONUC [United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] reinforcements in Ituri, along with a European Union “interim emergency force,” protection for civilians is far from assured. MSF must point out that these forces have managed to guarantee civilian safety only in several very limited spaces carved out with great effort. Furthermore, emergency aid contributions from the international community and U.N. agencies have been and continue to be inadequate." (p.3)
--"Although Operation “Artemis”, under European command Union, has deployed 1,500 soldiers since June 11, the population of Bunia and surrounding areas has yet to receive any real protection." (p.5)
--"Overall, security in Bunia remains extremely precarious. Despite the situation, MONUC continues to broadcast messages on Radio Okapi, assuring listeners that security has been restored and inviting the displaced persons to return to the city. These broadcasts risk creating a false sense of security among civilians." (p.5)
--"MONUC troops just stood by as violence surged, notifying the UN Secretary General and the media of developments day after day." (p.9)
--"The international community’s aid commitments are hardly more significant than its protection efforts. The UN agencies’ presence is minimal with respect to resources and staff. Institutional funds to underwrite aid operations are insufficient to meet the growing needs." (p.13)
The French-UN performance in DRC makes the US-Coalition efforts in Iraq seem highly competent by comparison.
8/03/2003
French Media:
Here are some questions (which read more like extended commentaries) asked by French journalists in a recent press conference with the French Foreign Ministry spokesman on August 1:
(1) "Sharon just isn't serious about the peace process. The Israeli army has taken no positive steps, while even the most extreme Palestinians have respected the cease-fire. What concrete acts does the European Union plan on taking, in particular with respect to the construction of the wall by Israel?"
(2) "Why does the European Union treat Sharon with kid gloves? Are Europeans afraid of Americans? Do Bush and Sharon control everyone in the world? But you nonetheless can put definite pressure on Israel to force it to change its policy."
While much of Europe blindly stands for a UN status quo that has failed to prevent catastrophes from Rwanda to Serbia to Chechnya, calls for UN reform are being heard from the United States. The Campaign for UN Reform recognizes the importance of the UN but is also willing to take a critical look at the organization, advocating for example the limitation of the Security Council veto. The Center for UN Reform Education offers a variety of documents on reform proposals.
One test of whether governments such as France are committed to the UN is whether they are willing to support reforms that will weaken their individual powers in the organization (viz. by limiting the powers of the Security Council and by expanding its permanent members) but that will create a more credible and effective organization. The UK has taken a step in the right direction and is planning to propose an expansion of the permanent members of the Security Council (though the new members would not have veto powers), adding Japan, Germany, India as well as yet-undecided African and South American countries.
8/03/2003
Saturday, August 02, 2003 More French Vandalism of British Tombstones
Tombs of English soldiers who fell during WWI were vandalized on July 31 at a cemetery in Aix-Noulette. According to a spokesman of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, "This is sadly a part of the summer - it is a problem we have every year." (via ABC Online)
In addition to the desecration at Aix-Noulette, gravestones in the Saint Aubert Commonwealth cemetery as well as at Le Quesnel in northern France were vandalized.
8/02/2003
